The Education and Workforce Committee has reported back on the Modern Slavery Bill, recommending that it be passed with a number of significant amendments.
The committee’s changes make the proposed regime more workable and better aligned with comparable New Zealand and Australian reporting frameworks.
Background on the Modern Slavery Bill
As discussed in our previous article, the Modern Slavery Bill passed its first reading in April 2026 and was referred to the Education and Workforce Committee. The bill seeks to require entities with consolidated revenue above NZ$100 million to publicly report on how they identify, address, mitigate, and remediate incidents of modern slavery within their operations and supply chains.
The committee received 347 written submissions from interested groups and individuals, including substantial engagement from advocacy organisations such as World Vision and Tearfund. The committee has made several important changes, agreed unanimously. It recommends the bill be passed as amended.
The amendments are generally focussed on ensuring the regime is workable in practice, including by providing consistency with other New Zealand corporate reporting regimes and aligning with Australia’s similar regime to reduce duplication for businesses reporting in both jurisdictions.
Summary of key changes to the Modern Slavery Bill
Who is caught by the reporting requirements
The NZ$100 million consolidated revenue threshold has been retained, but the committee recommends that an entity will only be a “reporting entity” if it meets the threshold in each of its two preceding accounting periods. This is a helpful refinement, aligning the regime with comparable New Zealand reporting frameworks and reducing the risk that a single exceptional year draws an entity into the regime.
Positively, joint reporting by group entities is now expressly permitted under new clause 10, aligning with Australian practice. However, the scope of the regime has also been extended to capture group reporting entities (i.e. an entity that, together with its subsidiaries, meets the threshold revenue amount).
In a welcome move for entities with trans-Tasman operations, the committee recommends that “overseas reporting entities” (those already reporting under Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018 or prescribed overseas jurisdictions) may submit their Australian statement in satisfaction of New Zealand requirements. This should significantly reduce duplication for the many New Zealand businesses that already prepare Australian modern slavery statements.
Preparing modern slavery statements
The committee has recommended a number of changes designed to make the reporting regime more practical. Reporting periods will now be aligned to each entity’s own balance date, rather than fixed calendar dates as originally proposed. This is a sensible change that aligns with how most businesses already report under other regimes.
The transitional provisions have also been improved. The first reporting period will be the 12-month period beginning after the legislation’s commencement. In effect, this provides a 24-month window between enactment and the date the first modern slavery statements are due.
Two new provisions address concerns about sensitive information. New clause 6(2) allows commercially sensitive information or other details not suited to publication to be withheld from the public register. Separately, new clause 8 provides that entities are not required to include information that would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including information that might prejudice ongoing investigations or the right to a fair trial.
Enforcement and personal liability
The offence and penalty regime has been substantially remodelled. The key elements are an offence for knowingly providing false or misleading statements, carrying a fine of up to NZ$200,000. These offences will only apply where information is known to be false or misleading in a material way. Minor errors or omissions will not be caught. Pecuniary penalties of up to NZ$600,000 will also apply for reporting failures.
The Fair Trading Act 1986 will also be amended so that the strict liability offence provisions and the unsubstantiated representations provisions do not apply to modern slavery statements. In our view this is a sensible clarification that will encourage more pragmatic engagement with the proposed reporting requirements.
The updated bill continues to impose personal liability. However, this now applies to directors and senior managers (replacing the broader “other persons involved in management” formulation in the original bill). This wording should help to partially clarify the range of individuals responsible. However, senior manager employees (those with significant influence over the management or administration of the entity) will doubtless remain concerned about their potential exposure. Interestingly, the committee noted that Australia does not currently impose director liability under its modern slavery regime, and a recent report confirms that no such extension is proposed. However, the committee noted that this information was “received so late in our consideration that we did not have time to adequately consider the issue or address it in this bill.” That may indicate a revision to the personal liability settings under the New Zealand bill in due course.
Next steps
The bill will now proceed to its second reading. The committee’s amendments represent a significant improvement in workability, but the New Zealand regime remains more onerous than Australia’s current model in several respects - most notably in the imposition of director and senior manager liability and the scope of the reporting requirements (at least for those who are not currently reporting in Australia who are unable to rely on the trans-Tasman reporting exemption noted above).
As such, businesses that are likely to be above the NZ$100 million threshold should be preparing now. Key areas of focus include reviewing supply chain diligence processes, complaints-handling mechanisms, internal reporting and governance frameworks, and training programmes. The extended transition period provides some breathing room, but early preparation remains essential given the breadth of the reporting requirements.
We have been tracking these developments closely and will continue to monitor the bill as it moves through the House. If you would like to discuss what the proposed regime may mean for your organisation, please contact the authors listed or your usual Bell Gully adviser.
Disclaimer: This publication is necessarily brief and general in nature. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.
